Electronic Theatre has an updated
Activision Blizzard Release Schedule that indicates the PC edition of
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 will be delayed for the PC platform. November
10 is still listed as the release date for the console editions, but the Windows
edition of the military combat sequel has been pushed back two weeks according
to this schedule, which lists PC Modern Warfare 2 for a November 24 release.
Thanks Preston.

It's impossible to find any game where all these variables match except for the level of DRM and as such, no reasonable comparisons can be made.

Not really, people will make reasonable assumptions and account for margins of error. You saying it's impossible isn't going to stop the industry or consumer from making them. It's necessary, they need to know what resonates with the consumer and what does not. They need to understand what sells the most units because at the end of the day everyone wants to sell a lot of copies of their game.

Whether it's fair or not is a different question altogether and really doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion. If you think everyone in the industry with games coming out this christmas isn't going to be comparing themselves to Modern Warfare 2, you're mistaken. Yes it's a juggernaut and the comparison isn't fair but it will be made nonetheless.

You can't compare Deus Ex and Call of Duty but that doesn't mean you couldn't compare Call of Duty and *pick a popular FPS that has a similar level of DRM here*.

How many popular shooters have had effective copy-protection? Bioshock? Mass Effect? Neither of which came remotely close to matching the sales of CoD4. Crysis sold a million and half units with a basic CD-check. Oblivion and Fallout 3 sold millions with basic CD-checks.

I don't think it's possible to make any valid comparisons in this case. How do you even judge popularity? Sales? What would you compare Bioshock and Mass Effect's sales to? How about Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, which took almost a year to crack? Would you compare that to Thief? MGS? Velvet Assassin?

Saying that copy-protection is effective because one game with DRM sold better than one without it is inherently flawed because they are different games that would have sold different amounts regardless of DRM. If you go by broader statistics, the best-selling games are the ones without "effective" DRM (i.e. online activations, install limits, etc). There are countless variables that go into a game's success and pretty much all of these have proven more important than DRM. PC-exclusive vs console port, delayed release vs simultaneous release, tons of marketing vs minimal marketing, big budget vs low budget, Christmas release vs summer release, no competition vs lots of competition... the list goes on and on. It's impossible to find any game where all these variables match except for the level of DRM and as such, no reasonable comparisons can be made.

You can't take the piracy rates or sales for two completely different games and then assume that copy-protection is the sole distinction between them.

So your point is that apples and oranges can't be compared so no one should make any reasonable comparisons too? You can't compare Deus Ex and Call of Duty but that doesn't mean you couldn't compare Call of Duty and *pick a popular FPS that has a similar level of DRM here*. All comparisons are not invalid just because a single one is. Make more reasonable comparisons should be your point, not a blanket statement that comparisons cannot work period.

Guess which one was a massive franchise and makes the whole comparison invalid? If you're going to claim the statistics can't be useful then at least compare two titles of relatively equal value and merit.

*DING DING DING*

Congratulations, you realize my point. No two games are exactly the same. You can't take the piracy rates or sales for two completely different games and then assume that copy-protection is the sole distinction between them. It's ridiculous. Sure, I can name some games with slightly effective copy-protection that sold better than games with less effective copy-protection. Conversely, I can name a whole lot of games with completely ineffective copy-protection that sold significantly better than games with very effective copy-protection.

Long story short: Any statistics that compare the piracy and sales of two different games and assume that copy-protection is the distinguishing factor are totally bunk.

Guess which one was a massive franchise and makes the whole comparison invalid? If you're going to claim the statistics can't be useful then at least compare two titles of relatively equal value and merit. Chronicles of Riddick is never going to sell as well as CALL OF DUTY for painfully obvious reasons.

Verno, have you seen the statistics that show that piracy is significantly lower on titles which don't have a zero day torrent available?

I'm not sure how useful those statistics can be. They are comparing piracy rates and sales of completely different games. For example, CoD4 was pirated on day one. Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena took a couple of weeks. Guess which one was both pirated more and sold more?

Or its entirely possible the developer felt the game wasn't ready for PC and requested additional time to polish the game. EA said "okay". Or maybe I'm a dumbfuck because spacecaptain said so.

Given the current trends in the industry that seems the less likely option. Perhaps if we saw the PS3 or the X360 version being delayed an equal amount of the time then we'd entertain such a suggestion but as it stands publishers seems to fuck about with the PC release as if no-ones going to buy it. And it's not like the PC version is only going to sell several thousand copies - we're talking about millions.

Isn't this almost a sort of segregation? I see it like delaying skim milk for 2 weeks for seemingly no good reason. The fatter people can buy plenty whole or 2% milk like everyone else but they're oddly forced to wait for their usual milk.

Not only that but from a QA perspective it takes much longer to QA a PC game given the wide variety of hardware and software configurations, whereas on consoles there is only 1 set of hardware and 1 piece of software that has to be QAd. I'm sure the QA process for the PC version alone is several weeks if not months more than that of the console versions.

On the other hand, console versions have to go through a long certification process with Microsoft/Sony, which isn't an issue for the pc version. That increases the QA time for console versions too.

Some of the most miserable and unhappy gamers on the planet are at Bluesnews

Nope, just personal observation from hanging out here and other places. And for the record, I don't dispute the numbers that developers bandy about when decrying piracy; what I take issue with is how they use them, i.e. Yerli Crevat using torrent vs. sale ratios to claim that Crysis could have sold as much as 20 times more copies were it not for piracy.

Theres no doubt that piracy does effect SOME sales numbers but Crevat was talking about strictly PC sale numbers. What I dispute is the current practice of publishers delaying the PC release due to their belief that pirated PC downloads cuts into the console Sku (the practice I REALLY detest are the PR suits trying to sell people on the fact that its being done to "polish" the game).

Go to gaming sites that attract a much younger demographic than Blues ie; Kotaku, Destructoid, Joystiq, etc. No one gives a shit about the PC version. Most don't even have PC's capable of running current gen DX10 games. They're all on cheap laptops or Macbooks or their parents ancient rig. The talk is 95% console-centric.

IMO the practice of delaying is grandstanding for their shareholders so they can say they're "doing something" about piracy's affect on their bottom line.